In that case thank you! Sorry, I did not read it as a complement at first. I actually thought you were saying I was slow in finding that...such is my take on the information age in which we live I guess.

Last edited by Glenn on Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

CHICAGO—The day after the Supreme Court cleared a path to overturn this city's ban on handguns—among the toughest in the U.S.—frustrated city officials began Tuesday to consider new measures to circumvent the high court's ruling.

At a tense City Hall meeting packed with citizens holding up photos of children who'd been shot, city aldermen discussed forcing gun owners to purchase liability insurance and to undergo criminal background checks and periodic firearms training. They also peppered a firearms-law expert and Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis with questions while promising to pass something meaningful.

If the city can pass a dog ordinance that "can protect the public from a dog bite," we should be able to tighten handgun regulations, Alderman Freddrenna Lyle said.

The debate comes at the direction of Mayor Richard Daley, an outspoken critic of gun access who reacted angrily to the Supreme Court decision.

AS EXPECTED, most of the letters to the Globe with regard to Jeff Jacoby’s column on guns were negative. And indeed, everything said about the lethal purpose of guns is true, but incredibly incomplete. Two aspects are ignored.

The first is that there is no law and never can be any law that will prevent guns from falling into the hands of killers. It has become almost trite to point this out, but that does not detract from its validity.

The second is that the notion of “the right of the people’’ appears in several places in the Bill of Rights. If you can start to alter one of those 10 rights, you can alter them all.

Shall we restate the First Amendment to read that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, providedthat the religion has the following set of beliefs:’’?

Reasonable people can try to seek reasonable compromises as to the proper and safe use of handguns.

The problem is that the issue, like so much else in public discourse, has been politicized to the point where both sides shout platitudes at each other and are in no mood to even attempt a sane conversation.

The letters the Globe published on this topic certainly fit into this category.Jack Kay,Framingham

At a tense City Hall meeting packed with citizens holding up photos of children who'd been shot, city aldermen discussed forcing gun owners to purchase liability insurance and to undergo criminal background checks and periodic firearms training.

They also peppered a firearms-law expert and Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis with questions while promising to pass something meaningful.

If the city can pass a dog ordinance that "can protect the public from a dog bite," we should be able to tighten handgun regulations, Alderman Freddrenna Lyle said.

1. How and why did the children get shot? Where did the guns to shoot the children come from, if Chicago has such stringent regulations?

You can't have just one city (or state, or nowadays even country really) ban guns and expect it to have any impact. It reminds me of the dry county I grew up in, alcohol sales were not allowed inside the county at all so it became ringed by bars and package liquor stores that were just across the border in all of the counties surrounding it, all aimed at attracting customers from the dry county. I often wondered if there was an increase in drunk driving in the dry county due to anyone wanting alcohol having to drive to the next county to get it. I could see people consumming more at those bars before driving home simply because it took more effort to get to those bars and thus they would be encouraged to stay longer when they did go. I do know that there were certain times of the week that I avoided driving in the border areas. The point is, the ban on alcohol sales neither stopped drinking nor forced moral behavior among county residents. And I say this as someone who never drank a drop of alcohol the whole time I lived in that county.

Chicago's ban was strictly a political move to appeal to voters.

As for liability insurance, the only type I can think of that would apply would be an umbrella policy like every homeowner should have (regardless of whether they have any guns or not).

As you know a general umbrella policy would be the most all inclusive, but maybe they are thinking of something like the liability component of auto insurance...or maybe even a product like the liability insurance some trades professionals such as plumbers have, or the malpractice insurance doctors have. There are many possibilities, and the one certainty I have is that actuaries could come up with a range of options if such a requirement were enacted.

My guess though is that they have not thought it that far through, it sounded more like a speculative comment to me.

And a host of questions would arise from this, for example if someone steals a gun and injures someone or damages property with it would the owner be liable? Questions like that get at your speciality of course, and I imagine it is not always a clear-cut answer to the insurance companies or courts.

Yes, the insurance question would be mind boggling as to what they could concoct ‘third party protection wise’ when a legally owned gun is involved in various situations… in the hands of the original owner or not.

I have had quite a few ‘gun cases’ and the coverage questions that get triggered under liability policies can be a nightmare.

Also imagine what the premiums would be.

 And a host of questions would arise from this, for example if someone steals a gun and injures someone or damages property with it would the owner be liable? <

Basically a gun is seen as a dangerous instrumentality_ and if it ends up in the hands of someone else due to the negligent control, storage and securing of the same, at common law or as required by State ordinance…then the owner would be held strictly liable for any injury or damage to third parties.

Many people reading this_ still do not understand the critical importance of an umbrella policy, coverage wise…feeling secure that their Home Owners policy is all the need with its liability component.

Van Canna wrote:Well, then...the 2nd should have been drafted without gray shades

Let's see...

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

At that time the term was often used to mean, "well ordered", "adjusted to ensure accuracy" or "correctly functioning according to a standard" and was even used when referring to "well regulated clocks" which were correctly functioning and accurate. The term "well regulated" also meant to "control or direct by rule, principle, method" or "to be controlled or ruled". (At this point the pro-2nd Amendment people who have been pounded by propaganda against the 2nd all their lives will start to get all squirmy and sweaty, but not to worry...)

The term "militia" had many meanings then and a lot of pro-2nd Amendment people try to focus on the meaning which states that the militia is "every able-bodied man {now person} owning a gun". The anti-2nd Amendment people try to focus on the usage of militia as meaning a standing army and police. The reason the pro-2nd folks argue that meaning as incorrect is because the Founders specifically used the term "standing army" separate from "militia". But let's look at the meaning of "militia" in the Constitution... realizing that the Bill of Rights (BoR) was demanded by the People and the States specifically because they had issues with the original Constitution!

In Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, Congress is granted the power:

"To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions."

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress:

"To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers:

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

So, what about that made the People & the States upset enough that they wanted a special, specific Amendment to the Constitution to clarify it?

The People of the States realized that their freedoms and liberties ("the Security of a Free State") required that ANY militia which was under the command of the government must be controlled ("well regulated") by a restrictive clause. This understanding, enlightenment, and desire of the People and the States in this regard becomes self-evident when reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. In those writings the Founders debate this exact need and desire and discuss how destructive to freedom "standing armies" can be and are! When brought forth under the Constitution, the People, the States and the FOUNDERS all knew that the militia became a "standing army". (Actually, a few Founders argued that the People should not be so concerned because everyone knew that "the Militia" included everyone. Those Founders were Federalists and wanted as much power as possible to reside in the newly formed Federal government. They were generally against the entire BoR, but caved because they quickly realized that the People were having none of THAT!)

Now also realize that the BoR were requirements, limits and restrictions on the newly created Constitutional Federal Government...

So how would the People and the States insure control ("well regulation") of the Constitutional militia?

With the second restrictive clause insuring that: "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed."

The People and the States knew that as long as the "People" were "Armed" then they could "well regulate" the "militia".

So, read with that in mind, read it again:

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

For those who still want to drink the anti-gun kool-aid, the 2nd Amendment is a declaration that if the Militia is not well regulated by the People keeping and bearing arms, the Militia becomes a threat to a Free State.

And the People, States and Founders of the time using the definitive clause "shall not be infringed" never dreamed that there would come a time when a standing military and/or police force(s) would be allowed to have arms denied to We, the People.

No matter how many obfuscations the anti-gun people attempt, even some of their best, most anti-gun scholars... including Laurence Tribe from Harvard, knew they were wrong on "the Embarrassing 2nd Amendment". (The title of one of Laurence Tribe's writings on the subject...) Even though activist judges try to reinterpret the Constitution for their own Statist desires, the entire BoRs was written to clarify and address individual rights. So, why would the Founders change that in the 2nd Amendment and make it a "Right of the State".

The 1st discusses the "Right of the People",
The 2nd discusses the "Right of the People",
The 3rd discusses the "Right of the Owner",
The 4th discusses the "Right of the People",
The 5th discusses the personal rights,
The 6th discusses the rights of the "accused",
The 7th discusses the Right to Trial by Jury (and who would be on trial? not the State!),
The 8th discusses restrictions on cruel & unusual punishment and excessive bail,
The 9th discusses the fact that the "People" have OTHER "Rights" not enumerated,
The 10th discusses that the Feds ONLY have the powers expressly granted to them, otherwise those powers are kept by the People or the States.

The 10th is the only place where a non-individual Right is even potentially mentioned, when it reserves power to the States. So, it is disingenuous at best for ANY judge, politician, or person to say that ALL of the BoR are individual Rights except the 2nd. The SCOTUS got this one correct... in as far as they went. I hope that someday soon, they will go the full distance and say what we all should already know...

"Congress shall make no Law" means Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW!

And
"shall not be infringed" means SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

==================================
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"